Bday Prang

I have provided the links, its not my version anymore according to your mate I was obliged to under the rules,

As far as I am concerned nothing is off limits when it comes to joking that includes myself too of course,, If you don't like a certain comedians style just don't watch him. But you have no right to tell others what they can and cannot watch. Its never the so called "victims" that get offended, some wokie creature always does it on their behalf

You know as well as I do what went on , why try to dismiss it

one of your woke mates demanded a link, what's your problem?

Those connected to the case directly obviously have their concerns, but honestly to the majority of the public its water off a ducks back after all the scandals we hear on an almost daily basis its hardly worthy of comment. As I said before , even those on this thread clutching their pearls and demanding andrews head on a stick are in the minority. Lets be honest nobody is actively promoting rape or child abuse, and we are not talking about the likes of jimmy saville or Sidney Cooke If an "up for it" sexually mature 17 year old gets a rogering off a prince I certainly am not going to loose any sleep over it. its hardly the end of the world especially when she gets 12 million for it What pisses me off is the fact that those involved in what I agree Is a rather tawdry business are the same people that spend a lot of their time telling us what we should and should not do, lets not forget Andrew is not the only high profile person to get his end away on Epstein's Island

you need more https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/new-book-shows-how-police-failings-helped-cover-up-rotherham-abuse/ I could do this all night

heres a few more for you to dismiss https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10941619/The-damning-verdict-police-failed-Rotherham-victims.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-chief-we-ignored-sex-abuse-of-children-hgrhc358v

try this for starters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal you can look deeper if you wish

You can prove it yourself, you're no stranger to researching the internet to prove your points just google Rotherham grooming scandal, or similar, there will be enough reading matter to keep you busy for a while, and I say that with confidence despite not having searched it myself.

Credible or not it happened, and it's not an isolated case. I thought it somewhat strange that dozens maybe hundreds of very young teenage girls many of 12 - 13 years old were basically sacrificed in the name of wokeness and for fear of upsetting muslim sensitivities,

"under age kiddies" and " trafficked sex lslaves" give it a rest please, there's about 3 people on here that are buying into that tabloid rubbish, and only for the purpose of virtue signalling, Nobody really cares what happened, even the "poor vulnerable victim" will nave been smirking to herself as she counted the money and no doubt continues to smirk smugly to this day, as enjoys the trappings of her new found wealth wealth. Her and her legal team have all done very well out of it indeed. Better we ask ourselves why a very, very small minority feel the need to express such disproportionate outrage so strongly on a forum like this. Not unlike those who travel the length and breadth of the country to bang frantically, on the back doors of the black maria taking a convicted pedo to court despite having no connection to the victim, or their family. Only a very small minority of weirdos do that . Its not normal behaviour, there must be a reason for it somewhere in the dark recesses of their conscience Back in the 70's where I lived there was a spate of what was known as "queer bashing" it was no laughing matter some horrendous beatings were carried out on people who for whatever reason were suspected by the perpetrators to be gay. It later somewhat unsurprisingly turned out that the perpetrators were themselves gay, the sole reason for beatings they administered being purley to deflect from that. Just sayin.. I don't think having a continuing friendship with a person convicted of anything is an offence, it maybe "unwise" for somebody in Andrews position but that's about it.

Really ? I seem to remember a distinct lack of vigour, regarding any investigation those allegations, which persisted for years and years. The Police, at the request very woke, and very senior civil servants, with links to again a very woke social services department deliberately turned a completely blind eye, to what was known by just about everybody in the authorities, to be happening on an extremely large scale. Unbelievably , the reason for this was purely for fear of offending Muslim " Cultural sensitivities" it was kept well under the radar, and little action was taken until a certain "right wing extremist" raised national public awareness of the issue and the powers that be were literally shamed into taking some reluctant action. Yet another fine example of wokeness

would it not have be better and more reassuring just to say nothing?

They are all quoting the law whist conveniently forgetting one of the fundamental principals of it. That being, that one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. I don't think that foundation stone of the legal system has been changed to suit social media Andrew should at present be presumed innocent. No matter how upset some people are regarding the nature of the allegations made against him

She was not a "child" by any stretch of the imagination, Even the legal term would be "a minor" there is a significant difference

I only expected to respond to my question without actually answering I was not disappointed I'll change the format next time, in order not to challenge you too much. I'll ask the question with just a "yes", "no", or "don't know" option for your reply, you will be able to remain in your comfort zone or safe space, and your sort love ticking boxes don't you lets give it a try Do hardened 17 year old prostitutes experience emotional enlightenment on their 18th birthday "YES" ? "NO" ? "DON'T KNOW"?

Good for you, you will be rewarded in heaven.

I knew you would be unable to answer and I knew you would have to respond Of course there is a "regardless of the legalities" we are not in court , laws are changing continually , Common sense is constant At one time in the UK homo man on man sex was a serious crime if it involved a "child" under 21 presumably decided by experts, and agreed by society to be disgusting then one day, the experts changed their mind, and the law changed at midnight, it be perfectly legal to indulge in such practices at 16.. and suddenly people like you started calling anybody disagreeing with that decision a bigot or homophobe By your argument the keeping of slaves would once have been acceptable as it was also legal, and approved by experts at the time. you are using legal technicalities as an excuse for your virtue signalling. You said "I'm saying she had no idea because she was minor and not capable of making a judgement call in this matter because of her age". .was that based on the current legal position, or where you speaking from a moral point of view? two totally different things The fact that you started the sentence with "i'm saying" indicates that it is your personal opinion, or at least the opinion you wish to project. Had the events taken place a few months later would you have considered poor victoria to be nothing more than a whore and andrews behaviour to be perfectly acceptable,?

Regardless of the legalities, can anybody explain to me how it is that a 17 year old can be considered an innocent vulnerable child , totally unable to know what they are doing, Yet at the same time , in the Uk at least, they are also considered to be, old enough to smoke, old enough to drink (in their house) old enough to drive , old enough to work , old enough to leave home, old enough to travel , old enough to have sex, old enough to get married as long as the parents don't object, old enough to give birth, and old enough to raise a child of their own , and if they don't wish to raise the child they are also considered old enough to elect for an abortion. Again regardless of the legalities, Is it really any worse for a 17 year old to have sex in luxury surroundings with a wealthy mature man and receive money for it. Than to have sex behind a skip on a demolition site with an unemployed drug user in exchange for a big mac and chips Just asking

The woke never laugh at anything, it is impossible to appear woke and retain any semblance of a sense of humour, the two are totally mutually exclusive. Can you think of one joke that they would be unable to take offence at? can you think of one woke comedian , ? Neither can I A sense of humour is an essential characteristic that sets us apart from the other forms of life on this planet, without a sense of humour one is an incomplete specimen of our species, in effect sub normal , The rest of us can joke about everything under the sun , from birth to death nothing is off the table, how lucky we are

contacting one of these "foundations" appears to guarantee fast track access to Big Joke himself, I wonder how they have achieved that ? Is he on a retainer ? I would have expected a guy in his position to be more adept at delegation. All very strange

I'm not angry

no actual acting required

i have no interest in finding employment for them, in the same way that immigration here has no interest in finding work for those who fail to meet the financial requirements. I would prefer it if they returned to where they came from

so lets repopulate with foreigners then and send all the indigenous brits to Rwanda, problem solved